BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

oh, and the ghost bike link follows to a story where pittsburgh gets a shout out

Norvell is correct to advise caution interpreting these results. It isn't clear at all what they mean. (I'm a statistician. I know alittle about these things.)

Only 3% of those that died had helmets. But then, when I've been in NYC I noticed that literally none of the cyclists on the streets had helmets. Astonishing. The traffic was like some video game, too.

The riders in central park had helmets. Afraid of baby carriages and skaters, no doubt.

It's true that driving or riding drunk is more dangerous. On the other hand, even though there are many studies showing physiologal reactions of driver slowing and perceptions not being as sharp with alcohol, I do not believe they are the cause of the extra danger. If it was, anyone over 50 would be considered more hazardous then a legally drunk (but just barely) 20 year old.

The problem? From years of non-scientific observation, I'd say the problem is that drunk people drive like assholes.

So, if you drink and bike, watch yourself. Don't indulge in alcohol-driven aggression and displays of machissmo.

If you feel compelled to act like an asshole when you drink? Don't ride. Don't go out for a beer with me either.

Mick

Another problem with these statistics is that multiple-DUI offenders cannot obtain a driver's license. Thus their options are limited to moped, public transit, the generosity of still-licensed drivers, and bikes. So that may well raise the percentage of all cyclists with a detectable blood alcohol level, not just those who are involved in accidents.

Of course, riding drunk is still a terrible idea. I'm just saying there are other factors to consider here.

...Thus their options are limited to moped, public transit, the generosity of still-licensed drivers, and bikes

i was wondering about that too. but i get the feeling that considering how many people are in nyc, and how many of them don't even own a vehicle, i imagine that that's pretty insignificant. it may be more significant in other places

here's another take on the article:

http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/04/09/whos-at-risk-from-drunk-cyclists/

You can see and print out the original report. There is a lot in it that is of more interest to bicyclists than the News!Worthy!Story!: "Bikers drink!"

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf

Mick

cyclists drink? hm. no one ever told me. i'd hang out with more cyclists.

interestingly, alcohol was one of the first "performance enhancing drugs" in cycling. cyclists would imbibe during races in the hopes that they would be better able to ignore the suffering they were undergoing. i wonder why they don't do that any more?

oh, another trick used to be not to drink any water at all during a race. back when the-lighter-the-better was the be-all-and-end-all, folks apparently thought that consumption of anything during a race would slow them down.

except alcohol, i guess?